Search form

You are here

The Importance of Lineage

At what point do the questions of "who taught whom?" and "from where do we derive specific techniques?" cease to matter?

Every so often, in the Martial Arts community, we hear stories about some instructor or other who is teaching under questionable credentials. Perhaps evidence comes to light that his own teacher outright forbid him from teaching the art, or, his supposed teacher, is a figment of some apparent mythology he created to attract students. We seem to think, as Martial Arts students, that an instructors lineage is one measure of that instructors worth. However, I can't help but wonder at what point lineage should cease to be a concern.

For example, there might be a karateka who has trained for a significant number of years with a particular instructor. In that time, he has learned much and honed his skills to excellent levels. For all intents and purposes, he is a competent practioner. However, as he continues training, he realizes that there are things that he wants to know that he cannot learn from his instructor. Perhaps, he is enamored with a particular kata that is not a part of his instructor's curriculum. So, he starts looking for someone to teach him the kata.

He goes from school to school, asking if someone will teach him, but noone will. The kata is an advanced one and therefore all the instructors he meets tell him that he must enter their school and spend the four to six years earning rank before he can learn the kata. The student is still training with his first instructor and has no desire to leave. Moreover, he is working full time and trying to maintain his thriving social life. He has neither the time nor the finances to dedicate to another karate school.

Realizing that he will not find an instructor to teach him the kata, he jumps on youtube and locates several videos of it. From imitating these videos, he learns the motions of the kata to the best of his abilities. He practices them until they feel precise and powerful. We can also assume that, in regards to training the kata, the student has also given significant thought to bunkai. He is pleased that he now knows a new and wonderful kata.

For the sake of this thought experiment, I want to propose several outcomes.

1) The student returns to his instructor, eager to share what he has learned. The instructor admires his students drive for learning. He lets the student demonstrate the kata for him and even allows the student to teach it to him.

2) The instructor sees what his student admires about the kata, and decides to share it with the entire class. After becoming somewhat proficient at the kata, the instructor (with the student's help) shares the kata with the entire class.

3) After improving his competence in the kata, the instructor decides to add it to the advanced curriculum for his school.

4) The student returns to the school, but worries that his instructor would not like his endeavor to learn a new kata not on the curriculum. However, he feels a burning need to share the kata with someone. He offers to teach the kata to a handful of the junior students in the class. On weekends, for the next several months, the students meet, so that the senior student can teach the kata to the junior students.

5) The student does not share the kata with anyone at his instructors school, but continues to diligently practice it for many years. Eventually, the student opens his own karate school. Naturally, in addition to the kata he learned from his instructor, he also includes this kata on his own curriculum.

6) As above, the instructor opens his own school and teaches the kata. Half a centuary later, the person who has inhereted his lineage is still teaching that kata in addition to the rest of the curriculum as taught fifty years prior. This person does not know, nor has he/she ever wondered where or how this particular kata became part of his/her curriculum.

How might we judge these various outcomes? Can the student rightfully teach the kata to anyone? Does it matter whether the student or his more talented instructor is teaching it? Does the kata belong on either the instructor's curriculum or his student's? Would you think less of a school that teaches something that the instructor did not learn in-person? Does it matter that after learning it, the student spent time practicing it with other martial artists of varying experience?

This is something that has been bouncing around in my head. I would love to hear others' thoughts on the matter.

In the Chinese martial arts, of which I am a student and teacher, lineage is always set forward as the end all of the qualifications of any instructor.

But I must submit the possibility that lineage is important, but to a much lesser degre than is presented by so many. In the CMA, in my own style, Hung Gar, if someone claims a lineage direct from Wong, Fei Hung,he is granted more legitimacy than someone who does not. There are schools in Hng Gar who claim in their lineage a man named Hung Man Ting, who is not a historical person, but rather a character from a Shaw brothers film.

In spite of this being a known fact in the Hung Gar circles, people continue to claim Hung Man Ting as part of their lineage.

To me, the reason for this is simple; people prize lineage over skill.

If we were to rightly prize skill, we would see that lineage provides a ligitimacy that eliminates video warriors, but does not weed out those who claim a skill that they have never earned through their own effort and work.

This is a great topic, and I do hope that others chiime in! But for my own opinion, I think that lneage plays a much smaller role than it is portrayed to have.

I've moved around to various Schools, not all Japanese, and when I left my Sensei, I stuck with the Syllabus, until Nidan, then I changed it to include everything I had done before. So Lineage, I suppose, begins with me!

Back in the day it was the norm for teachers to send their students to train elsewhere. "Go and train with so and so in the next village for a year. He's got a good Bo kata"... that sort of thing.

All that matters is what I'm doing now. I train on my terms, but it is good to have an idea of our history. Of course history isn't lineage! Acknowledging the past is good, but we should focus on the present.

with regard to lineage, i thin some time it can be used in a good way, with so many strange schools popping up all over the place so legit and some less so having a lineage could be seen as important. however i have seena certain bagua school with all the nice looking lineage papers and certificates that is as legit as a $12 note.

I think that sometiems it is more the feeling of the school is more important. if it give you what you are looking for then it is ok.

as for the OP. in the past it was very common to go and train with a teacher to learn a particular form or skill, but this was before MA became a major money making endeavour, certianly i have seen teachers over here that have taken on a person that was very good in one art and taught them a very advanced form, more advanced infact than many of his own students.. if a skilled ptractioner comes to you to ask how to do something then it is ridiculous to ask him to spend time doing basic line work all over agian. sometimes ego gets in the way, :he can't just walk in and learn an advanced form, he has to speand time bowing to me first" etc.

another senario could be after the student has self studied the form for a while and demonstrated it, maybe even taught it to some people. He is asked where he learnt it. after explaining that he learnt it from youtube I am fairly sure at least some people would cast doubt on him.

but what about something smaller than a kata, how about just a technique? for example, I studied Aikdio for just over 3 years then had to stop when my teacher moved away. During that time my study was anything between 2 to 5 times a week, and attended week long seminars with visiting high level teachers, but due to the short time that i had with my teacher i didn't manage to gain my black belt. now when i look at my TKD forms i can see movemtents that could be fitted into Aikido techniques, irimi naga, kokyoho and kotegashi to name a few. do I as a none black belt in Aikido have the 'right' to teach these teachniques to my TKD students or would it be seen as half baked knowledge

Some thoughts on the general idea of lineage: Firstly, everyone has one. All of us learnt what we know from somewhere. Assuming that there has been direct instruction in a student / teacher format then there will be links to the previous generations. The question becomes at what point that link is “legitimate”?

In the back of our dojo handbook / grading syllabus, it has a “family tree” reaching back from me to as far as we can go back in history. I’ve had many instructors in many different disciplines and all had had an influence on what I do and teach. However, the only ones I include in that tree are the ones that I gained “teacher status” with i.e. they officially said I was capable of teaching their methods (and all those teachers have also graded me to 5th dan or higher). While the contributions of others have made positive contributions to me as a martial artist and teacher, they are probably most accurately classed as “influences” as opposed to “teachers”.

One thing of note here is that I don’t teach in exactly the same way as any of my teachers, but I still feel I have a strong linage and that that lineage is passed onto my students. I don’t see linage as being about “purity”, but quality of instruction from all the streams upon which an individual draws.

There are techniques and training methods that I have acquired from people who are not my teachers (i.e. on seminars etc) and as useful as that material is to me, I don’t claim it as part of my lineage.

As I said, these days what I do is uniquely mine, but it draws on what I was taught and I have proved my understanding / ability in the eyes of my teachers; as they did their teachers. I therefore think I have a strong lineage which I think has value and I personally draw satisfaction from.

Someone may have watched one of my teachers’ DVDs or read their books and took information from it. However, I trained with them directly for a very long period of time and they were personally satisfied that I understood their teaching to a high level. I therefore feel I have a legitimate “linage link” with that person in the way that the DVD watcher does not.

If we stick to idea that a “lineage link” is legitimate when “my teacher said I was a teacher” then having a linage is a reasonable indication of a chain of quality instruction and that has to have value. It’s far from being the only consideration though and it’s certainly not the most important.

People should do not mistake “linage” for “ability”. We see that a lot where people claim that just because they have trained with a given person that legitimises what they do. The only real measure is “effect”. If you want to know if a person can punch well, then get them to punch. Asking them about their “family tree” to ascertain their ability is flawed in many ways. This is particularly true if the lineage they have is political or familial and not based on ability.

Another problem with lineage is when it is used to stifle progress. If potentially positive developments are shunned in a desire to keep a “pure lineage” then that will ultimately lead to stagnation (as we can see in much of modern martial arts). I cover this problem in some depth in this article:

Sometimes, lineage also shows without having to ask for it. Some instructors sometimes recognize some technique or some way of moving as being some other instructor's signature. Without asking you, they'll know you trained, at least a little, under that other instructor.

It's not just about where you com from. It shows in how you do things. And it can be important to recognize this. As an example, in my studio, we have a habit of sliding forward when doing line drill, taking extra long steps. That's because our studio founder trained as a kid with adults. He got that habit to keep up with the adults' longer strides. And he kept it, and everyone he taught gained it, and transmitted it to their students in turn. It's good to know where that extra slide comes from, to be able to do it on command, and not just "because my instructor does it that way".

To answar the topic starters question: "Yes" He can teach it - i do not personally care where people learn there stuff from, so long they don't lie or make false claims about it. If the training makes sense and the ideas and applications seems workable - perfect for me!

______________

I have been thinking about this also - and would like to emphasize on the influential people.

If somebody where to look at me lineagewise, they would see me primarely as an ordinary Shotokan guy.

But i am so far away from Shotokan almost as anything can be - that is why i add people who in someway or another have influenced me - some of your principles, Iain, have. Aswell as McCarthy and other Seminar teachers that i have only met a few times or even just read books from. These thoughts and ideas i sometimes consider essential for my developement and further thoughts and are not to be neglected - but in no way i would reffer to any of them (you) as my teacher, that would be absurd

Also some might understand ones background when listing styles instead of teachers, unless that teacher had specifik ideas. My tree would normally included the styles in which i have a higher degree of proficiency, then my primary teacher from Kyusho, then alive infuental persons and then dead influental people. Also you can be familiar with styles that which you have not trained - due to the amount of availability on the internet, books etc. etc.

Seems like there are two connected issues issues with this theoretical situation, lineage, and purity of style.

To me lineage only matters in that it's a great thing to learn from excellent people, you do not have to neccessarily care about purity of style for that, nor do they. Secondly on the issue of purity of a style syllabus..it's about like the debate between the letter and spirt of the law, Is something 'proper' because it contains the right kata, or because it seeks the right principles?

Even within styles with the same syllabus of kata, there is no guarantee whatsoever that you will be learning the same thing, these are living arts afterall, and whatever you are being taught comes through the filter of a whole other human being, almost impossible to 'preserve' something that way, it inevitably changes..I guess the only question is whether it changes for the better.

Another issue with the theoretical situation is what kind of dojo it is, there are some dojo where the teacher is always 'above' the student to a degree that things will never go the other way, the teacher will never accept something new from the student on principle. Then there are other people who teach more from a 'senior peer' point of view..this will affect the propriety of a decision about kata syllabus etc.

Lineage does matter in that having good teachers that you spend some time with really matters, good teachers are like gold! Beyond that I don't think it's anything to worry about personally though. Karate is also different from something like Koryu Jujutsu where there is a definite attempt to pass down an exacting, 'correct' syllabus of techniques, it is more principle led than that, and seems to be more tailored to individual development, in that context it's hard to say "I teach and such such's Karate", rather than just saying "I train with such and such".

Technique or ability don't neccesarily come with lineage. (but sometiems it does of course).

But responsability for the Ryu, historical and cultural issues and interests do.

I found a very good lineage, and I am very proud of it, but it has no merit over a non lineage/traditional method from a martial arts application perspective - thats all about individuals and training methods etc.

Otherwise the Ninja's would simply be the hardest of us all LOL.

Personally there was always something inside me that sought legitimacy via lineage in martial arts, I found that with our Ryu - I am pretty sure I could have found it in other Ryu as well of course, to many this simply does not matter and power to them for it.

Keep it honest and train hard is where it starts, and as I grow older where it's looking at finishing!

I think that lineage is so open to abuse that its value can be significantly reduced. There is great value in receiving quality instruction from quality teachers (hence the value of lineage). However, when people spend more time arguing over who has the 'best' lineage, in a manner more reminiscent of the playground (i.e. my dad's better than your dad) instead of just concentrating on improving their own skills and understanding, then the topic of lineage becomes a hinderance to the individual and a cause of petty jealousy and slander.

Choki Motobu had great skills but had difficulty obtaining, or keeping, a teacher after his street brawls in the Okinawan red light district. Does that make him a poor teacher or martial artist? What he had in abundance was skill, experience and knowledge, traits that made him a worthy teacher. Did his students automatically become great because they trained with him? No, but some undoubtedly did.

For me, what a person can do and what they know is far more important than who their teacher was. If they have a direct and credible lineage, great, I will listen and learn from them, just the same as anyone else who I decide I want to learn from. At the end of the day, if you are teaching at the front of the dojo, it is you teaching, nobody else. If you are defending your life against some tooled up street thug, it is you who is in danger, not your teacher's teacher.

Teachers should be like beacons of light, guiding the students and highlighting dangers, but letting them learn. Teachers should not be comfort blankets for people to cling to so they feel safe and secure.

If you look at all the Grand masters and founders of styles they all trained with several masters prior to setting up their own school so it looks like it traditional to train in various schools before finding "the one"

Looking at my Lineage from Knockdown

Sosai Oyama was taught Shotokan and Goju Ryu then founded Kyokushin Karate

Ashihara Kancho was taught Kyokushin and other arts not confirmed then founded Ashihara Karate

(My Instructor is 2nd/3rd generation)

I was Taught Ashihara Karate, Wado Ryu, Tang Soo Do and Jujitsu and formed Black Tiger Karate

Then

Ninomiya Kancho Was taught Ashihara (originally Kyokushin) Karate and Judo/Aikido then founded Enshin

And if you look at ShotoKan, a mix of 2 styles and includes Kata from different lineage for example Bassai Dai & Bassai Sho also Kanku Dai and Kanku Sho etc

Wado Ryu is a mix of Shotokan and Jujitsu

I've not yet seen a style that is "PURE" it has had many outside influences prior to its formation

I suppose another way of looking at this is by asking the question "If you are standing in a class, looking to learn and become the best martial artist that you can be, what is more important, the quality of the teacher standing in front of you or the quality of your teacher's teacher?"

I suppose another way of looking at this is by asking the question "If you are standing in a class, looking to learn and become the best martial artist that you can be, what is more important, the quality of the teacher standing in front of you or the quality of your teacher's teacher?"

Just a thought...

Totally agree. Doesn't matter how good their teacher was, if they're not close they're not good, period.

I suppose another way of looking at this is by asking the question "If you are standing in a class, looking to learn and become the best martial artist that you can be, what is more important, the quality of the teacher standing in front of you or the quality of your teacher's teacher?"

Just a thought...

I think that’s very valid and just because someone had a good teacher it does not follow that they are any good. However, to flip things over for a second, if your teacher’s teacher was not very good, how likely is it that your teacher will be any good?

As I said earlier in this thread, I think that lineage as a by-product of quality instruction has to be positive. Lineage as political control, nepotism, a “substitute” of personal talent or as means to stifle legitimate progress is obviously negative.

I suppose another way of looking at this is by asking the question "If you are standing in a class, looking to learn and become the best martial artist that you can be, what is more important, the quality of the teacher standing in front of you or the quality of your teacher's teacher?"

Just a thought...

I think that’s very valid and just because someone had a good teacher it does not follow that they are any good. However, to flip things over for a second, if your teacher’s teacher was not very good, how likely is it that your teacher will be any good?

As I said earlier in this thread, I think that lineage as a by-product of quality instruction has to be positive. Lineage as political control, nepotism, a “substitute” of personal talent or as means to stifle legitimate progress is obviously negative.

I guess I don't care about formal lineage that much, honestly I don't even care much about style or system.

I do care alot about learning from people who are really good though, and in that sense, I feel lineage is important. I do think also that there is a ..."flavor" to Karate, maybe a combination of outlook, strategy, and teaching method that to me pretty much defines it.

I am not sure that all formal lineages have it, in fact i'll bet plenty don't. However, that "flavor" has been transmitted in an optimum way here and there, and if you can find one of these teachers, then obviously, in some sense lineage provides a vehicle for good Karate, that's all it is though, a vehicle for passing down the actuall good stuff, lineage itself can't make good Karate

I trained with Soke Kenzo Mabuni, he accepted me, I'm an American with English Ancestry.

Soke's father, Kenwa Mabuni, taught Japanese/Okinawan's, and was very patriotic, he taught martial arts with and trained with Seiko Fujita for the Japanese Millitary, special "black ops" type training before WW2.

I trained with Soke Kenzo Mabuni, he accepted me, I'm an American with English Ancestry.

Soke's father, Kenwa Mabuni, taught Japanese/Okinawan's, and was very patriotic, he taught martial arts with and trained with Seiko Fujita for the Japanese Millitary, special "black ops" type training before WW2.

So, would he have accepted Non-Japanese students?

Maybe not, but does it matter?

A teacher might withold things from a student, a good student finds things out for himself through thinking and practice beyond his teacher's instruction.